11

The sun is growing colder

Posted by $ nickursis 7 years, 8 months ago to Science
56 comments | Share | Flag

Hmmm.. some people have been suggesting this is coming, and yet, even when science gives in and says "Well, OK" they have to put their "Climate Change" spam into it : “The cooling effect of a grand minimum is only a fraction of the warming effect caused by the increasing concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere,” a statement from the research team reads."


All Comments

  • Posted by Dobrien 7 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It's electric not combustion. With a weakened Magnetisphere a condition that we have not experienced in modern times .The theory is that a CME or X-class solar flare blast ing us with hydrogen filled plasma entering the ionosphere with a strong negative charge . This attracts the positive oxygen combining to form H2O. This makes far more sense as to where the earth got its water ,than the comets as icy snowball BS . That's what WTAF
    "The unequal sharing of electrons gives the water molecule a slight negative charge near its oxygen atom and a slight positive charge near its hydrogen atoms. When a neutral molecule has a positive area at one end and a negative area at the other, it is a polar molecule."
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ByzantineGeneral 7 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    oxygen races up to meet hydrogen in the ionosphere

    WTAF?

    Everybody knows it's the phlogiston leaking off into the cislunar sphere. Moron!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 7 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    All true, Lucky, just becomes painful to separate fact from political fiction these days. Even harder when the "fact people" have sold out for grants and contracts to "research the problem". I don't discount such sources, but I agree with your points in how they can be manipulated in presentation and tone, as well as keywords, but they may have kernels of real facts in there...somewhere...maybe....
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 7 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Ah nickursis
    Thank you for the above comment as it reinforced a lesson,
    anything important must be kept short.

    A summary, the Epoca article that you quoted, squelches the scare.

    The big problem is not mendacity, it is mushy thinking.
    If people could think they could resist the scaremongers.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 7 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I am not going to argue if it is political, because the left has politicized EVERYTHING, so that immediately says most science, is not science, but science for show. That said, the acidification issue IS still valid, if something is ph 5 and moves to 5.1, it is becoming MORE acidic, and less base. Is it harmful? I don't know, but I have never had much luck with fish, fresh or salt, as they always end up croaking, despite all my best efforts and mucho money for testers and chemicals. I don't object to the term as it is descriptive, but also is probably a weapon used for emotional support, "acidification" sounds really bad. I also don't know if the issue is one of concern or not, but I would still say that their "skewed" look at things has enough validity to warrant more investigation. Unfortunately, more investigation always seems to have an additional price tag on it. It is hard to find ANY objective science is these cases, as all the scientists are being paid by someone, and someone always wants the results they are paying for.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 7 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Warning, long boring post

    https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/W...
    - noaa.gov is a government agency website.
    Look at the mission statement-
    to show that 'rising atmospheric CO2 and climate change'. etc.
    That is there is no search for truth, the objective is politics.

    "Future predictions indicate that the oceans will continue to absorb carbon dioxide and become even more acidic."
    My comments-
    1. the usual models..
    2. a thing that is not acidic cannot become more acidic.

    The sea butterfly- photos show the shell dissolving after 45 days "in sea water with pH and carbonate levels projected for the year 2100".
    more projected guff. Yet there is also strong evidence that decreasing alkalinity benefits ocean dwelling organisms.
    The final para has the usual words of- problem, acidification, impossible to predict, blah, that is, a great example of how to get grant money by supporting scares and covering the backside.


    ----------------------------------
    http://www.epoca-project.eu/index.php...
    Possibly, EPOCA got only EU tax money.

    Q and A from this paper-

    Q. 'The ocean is not acidic, and model projections say the oceans won’t ever become acidic. So why call it ocean acidification?'
    A. Yes but if the pH keeps on going etc.
    This answer is provided by James Orr, Senior Scientist .. ..
    (My comment- So, imagine you are a college fresher, you get an av of 8 propositions a week from the opposite sex. Last week you only got 5. You may have become less attractive last week. James Orr, Senior Scientist .. .. says you became unattractive. )

    Q. Would dissolving all the CO2 released by burning all the world’s fossil
    fuel reserves ever make the seas acidic?
    A. No. The fundamental chemistry of the ocean carbon system, including the presence of calcium carbonate minerals on the ocean floor that can slowly dissolve and help neutralize some of the CO2, prevents the oceans from becoming acidic on a global scale.

    You want more?
    You did not say yes but I comment- why use the words acid/acidic when that usage is wrong- it is because of the emotional impact. Fact is that alkalinity can be just as or more harmful as acidity but the word not as good for generating fear.
    In Victorian England there was a big scale murderer, Dr Crippen, who dissolved victims' bodies in acid. Many alkalis would have been effective. Carbonic acid would not.
    ------------------------------

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...
    There was a time, 2 decades back, when I was a regular reader of Scientific American. I recall many references to research on illegal drugs, all claimed that money was only available for studies that showed harmful effects, a paper that had an insufficiently strong negative conclusion would cause funding for that institute to cease. Law, order, government and the do-gooding classes knew what they wanted and were prepared to pay for it. (With your money). When the carbon climate scare ramped up, the link became clear in my mind, but not in the pages of Scientific American or most of the other so-called science journals.

    "Climate change caused by rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is now widely recognized." This statement is correct but the proposition is wrong, typical of a religious belief.
    "We are acidifying the ocean" Basic scare technique, no such effect is happening.
    "balance" The alarmist case claims millennia of stability, the word 'balance' is a favorite with greens/viros/alarmists/progressives.
    "That careful balance"! Who was careful- Gaia or .. .. ?
    Then along came the white male capitalist who burns fossil fuel putting out enormous amounts of carbon emissions/pollution. Before, there was harmony between unicorns, amazons and Atlantis, lions and lambs would 'lie down' together. Then the sacred balance was broken, the Earth's climate was disrupted.
    Fact is, in nature there is no such thing as balance, climate, weather, geology, ecology, species fluctuate and come and go. Nature has a multitude of facets, if one is held constant it will not guarantee the survival of any species.
    The article is weak/lacking on presenting evidence that would support their alarmist proposition of a 'problem', there is no problem.
    ------------------------------

    http://ocean.si.edu/ocean-acidification
    The Smithsonian.
    Gulchers may recall some discussion here about two years ago when the NY Times ran a scurrilous article accusing scientist Willie Soon of corruption. Soon had while at the SI published an article questioning the carbon change scare. The outcry was viscous and widespread, Soon received no support from the SI.

    This ref is all the same, some downright wrong, most misleading, some- not even wrong.
    You may think this is a scientific paper, it seems to be 'educational'.
    I note there is a reviewer who is - Jennifer Bennett (NOAA).

    When you go to the last para- What You Can Do- you see it is of course propaganda.
    "You" are told to reduce your energy" etc. We know that certain big names that skip across the globe in jets, helicopter and limos for conferences are exempt.
    ------------------------------
    Common to all the above-
    High standard of erudition and presentation.
    Sufficient weasel words and get-outs so it is hard to show they are wrong,
    no, ' you will never see snow again' type of statement.
    The same person pays for it all - you.
    ---------------------------------------
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 7 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Oceans are not acidic and cannot become acidic.
    The word acidification is intentionally misleading being part of sophistry not of chemistry.

    The world’s oceans are alkali. (alkali. alkaline. base. as appropriate)
    If all the world’s atmospheric CO2 was put in the oceans (and life on earth thereby extinguished) the oceans would still be alkali. 98% of all the world’s gaseous CO2 is already in the oceans.

    No increase in atmospheric CO2 can change ocean pH to acidic.
    CO2 in the atmosphere is converted in the oceans to calcite (limestone) and other carbonates, mostly through biological paths CO2 + CaO => CaCO3 (exothermic).
    The conversion rate increases with increasing CO2 partial pressure, a dynamic equilibrium-seeking mechanism.

    Oceans contain dissolved CO2.
    The amount deceases with temperature, see Henry's Law.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 7 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "Let one hundred flowers bloom.
    Let one schools of thought contend."
    Mao

    Let all of them get voluntary contributions only.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CaptainKirk 7 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Please be Careful posting truths like this.
    I was afraid if these MORONS discover the warmth comes from the sun, they would try BLOWING UP THE SUN to "Save us all".

    Now, you tell them to get rid of the moisture in the air. OMG... If these idiots find a way to do that, we will all die of dehydration, which they will label as SUCCESS because the SAND won't be HOT!

    I wish this were a sarcastic reply... I really do!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Suzanne43 7 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Take care of yourself, Dino. You know what happened to dinosaurs when the earth's climate cooled. So dress warmly.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by BCRinFremont 7 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Sounds like the desert planet in Frank Herbert's "Dune" series. Plenty of melange spice to go around for everyone.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 7 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I am not so sure they can manage a world wide collective, Russia couldn't, but they sure can rape us for money....
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 7 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Now one issue that seems real, and realevant, is the acidification of the oceans due to increased CO2, resulting in Carbonic Acid. Now, had they harnessed that pony, I almost could get on board with it, as it beats evolutionary time to ramp up the volume of CO2. But they missed that bus, since Al did not know anything about oceans.....
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 7 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Because those trillions will NEVER be used to alter ANYTHING. They will disappear or be used to shore up some other flim flam operation like Social Security, or in each state, ther PERS. Oregon is in the midst of trying to roll over us with a 1 Billion $$$ "Cap and Trade" for "Clean Energy Jobs". BS. No government ever creates jobs, just more government. They will take that money and shore up PERS, leaving them only 4 billion or so in the hole this year.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo